Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pel Mel (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (Non admin closure) Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   09:14, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Pel Mel
Why the page should be deleted  KDS 4444   Talk  20:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Delete This is a Re-nomination for deletion. Previous arguments in support of keeping the article were based largely on the fact that the band had released two albums with a major record label (EMI). This is a bare minimum eligibility requirement, and the requirement, like all of them for WP:BAND, is a "may be notable if this condition is met". The fact is that the article, six years later, still has no suitable citations (half of them are unverifiable dead links, the others are private blogs that are of dubious independence) suggests that the band simply is not notable. Meeting a single requirement on the list does not, in my opinion, infer de facto notability— it MAY do so, but in this case, given the paucity of any additional verifiable information on the band, it does not. KDS 4444  Talk  20:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per prior AfD. They were notable then and they are still notable. --Michig (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I have argued, however, that they were NOT notable then and have not become MORE notable since then. Also, the notability guidelines make clear that notability is not permanent.  Please argue for a "Keep" on more grounds than a prior keep.   KDS 4444   Talk  20:54, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Seriously? I think your confusing the guideline with what it actually states, which is "Notability is not temporary". The arguments put forward for keeping in the first AfD still apply - I don't need to come up with new ones. --Michig (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Ridiculously low-quality deletion nomination, trivially ineligible for deletion - David Gerard (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix your sloppy deletion markup, failed. Please pay more attention to what you are doing - David Gerard (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I remember the single "Pandemonium" very well as it got alot of airplay. Will try to improve article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. They were very well covered by the music magazines of the time.Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability is indeed permanent, and I repeat my argument from last time that Pel Mel meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC).
 * Keep. Has entry in Ian McFarlane’s Encyclopedia of Australian Rock and Pop . duffbeerforme (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep have added further references - establishing notability Dan arndt (talk) 05:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Two albums, toured nationally, entry in McFarlane (url now supplied). Easily qualifies as notable.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.